The presence of free speech and freedom of intellectual pursuit in modern society along with the development of mass media technology has enabled any nutcase with the means and the motivation to distribute his or her ideas to the world. On the other hand, it has also allowed for meaningful intellectual discourse to occur between great minds that would otherwise never have the opportunity to connect. Whether you find Bjorn Lomborg to be an optimistic ray of light in the muddled mess of global warming theory or environmental enemy number one, his work as a public intellectual raises key arguments as to why society needs a little bit of both to continue to evoke thought and discussion amongst other intellectuals in the academic world. Through his highly publicized and controversial works, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: A Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, Lomborg has managed to keep the debate on global warming an issue by downplaying its effects and criticizing current efforts to minimize them. But with the validity of his research in question it becomes evident that when work is done outside of an intellectual’s area of expertise it is subject to intense scrutiny and will inherently mislead some portion of the population.
Lomborg’s most recent works have, in fact, defined what it means to be a new age public intellectual in the sense that they have “stirred the pot.” According to Stephen Mack’s blog, The New Democratic Review, stepping outside of one’s academic discipline to comment on socially relevant matters is what intellectuals do. Lomborg who has several degrees in political science, has effectively demonstrated his skill in journalism and scientific research to publish many works regarding the over embellishment of the problem of global warming by the media and the government. He has also aptly criticized of the work being done to curb global warming as excessive and inefficient. In his Washington Post article published last June, he states that “attempts to curb carbon emissions along the lines of the bill (referring to the Lieberman-Warner Climate change bill) now pending are a poor answer compared with other options,” in order to bring to light the other possible options America has in attempting to lessen the effects of global warming. However, in the same moment, Lomborg has clearly gained a left wing following that is using his work as evidence of global warming’s non-existence. According to many environmental blogs including Open Mind, which sites statistic fallacies in Lomborg’s work, many Lomborg supporters are misreading statistical analysis and coming to the conclusion that environment saving programs to reduce green house gases are fruitless.
Where do we as intellectuals draw the line between provocative research and writings that are the source of small amounts of mass hysteria that could be harmful (or helpful depending on how you view the situation) to society?
